Congratulations, judging by the number of posts in the forums you spend your time wisely...
I don't understand (with all due respect) all this verbal diarrhea (xcuse my french) the point is that the OP's pic made it to a big time magazine and that is something to celebrate!

uwsartist wrote:Congratulations, judging by the number of posts in the forums you spend your time wisely...
I don't understand (with all due respect) all this verbal diarrhea (xcuse my french) the point is that the OP's pic made it to a big time magazine and that is something to celebrate!

Lumigraphics wrote:Glad to see Mr. Harrington decided to chime in. I just happen to pretty much totally disagree with both his point of view and his conclusions.

You strike me as the Ivory Tower type, who will make proclamations all day long about ethics and what is right and what should or should not be.

Give us a fucking break. You are posting those opinions out of pure self-interest. That's fine, but don't lie about it. YOU have concluded that YOU could make more money if you didn't have competition from microstock. Since you can't make it go away, you'll resort to fancy language and invoke ethics and all that other crap.

Too bad that many of us think you are full of shit.

Hey, I'm in your boat. I identify as an amateur, I'm on MM, I don't make my living from photography.

Nevertheless, it's pretty clear to me that a lot of the people on this thread vigorously defending microstock perceive themselves to have a vested interest in defending it as well. That is most are on istock (or an equivalent) and most think they are making enough money to make it worth their while. (whether these are valid points or not, I don't care, I'm simply talking POV).

So, I don't really think it's a good argumentative point to suggest that John's position isn't valid simply because he's thinking about his bottom line.

The issue really is that there are two ways of looking at microstock as it is currently being practiced by Getty, Corbis, Shutterstock, etc....one is that because of practices that are devaluing the pricing structure of images, that the craft and livelihood of photography is being damaged vs the POV that microstock is a wonderful invention for small time purchasers and large corporations that are being incredible cheapskates, to spend less money on images for their publications than you or I do to fill up our car with gas and that it doesn't devalue photography anymore than the world being filled with McDonald is an insult to our diets or dining in general.

Why is it that someone who clearly IS making their living practicing photography, someone that actually has some decent tears, is dismissed so easily angrily by people who are, I imagine, attempting to be working their way into this so-called "industry" that is constantly referred by folks on MM?

Patchouli Nyx wrote:Why is it that someone who clearly IS making their living practicing photography, someone that actually has some decent tears, is dismissed so easily angrily by people who are, I imagine, attempting to be working their way into this so-called "industry" that is constantly referred by folks on MM?

Because he is neither speaking on my behalf nor in my interest. I am a competitor and he doesn't like my business model, so he calls me and my colleagues unprofessional and unethical.

As far as I am concerned, HE is being unethical and dishonest and very much unprofessional.

Patchouli Nyx wrote:Why is it that someone who clearly IS making their living practicing photography, someone that actually has some decent tears, is dismissed so easily angrily by people who are, I imagine, attempting to be working their way into this so-called "industry" that is constantly referred by folks on MM?

because he's calling the OP unprofessional and essentially anyone that would be willing to give up a generic image as a stock resource than can be put on a major magazine for far less than what he feels it should be getting are fools.

If I was a high end wedding photographer and provided my wedding photography services for free because I don't need the money, am I a fool? It WOULD be a valid thing if I was always complaining about shooting weddings. But if I got a huge amount of joy from that type of photography and basically loved giving it was a wedding gift to couples that "hire" me?

I would only call the OP a fool if he was complaining that Time picked up his photo and didn't pay what they would normally pay. The obvious answer would be, "Duh! If you don't want your images to be so inexpensively used, don't make them available at such low rates." I don't see him complaining. Hell, he could have PAID Time magazine $1,000 to get the cover shot. If that makes him happy, so be it! And if that then becomes the model for Time, selling their cover for $1,000 to whoever wants it, then that's just life. It is what it is. And as I have been saying over and over, you either change, adapt, or quit.

I completely understand how when one's living changes is VERY VERY inconvenient. It's NORMAL to complain. My health benefits have been cut since I first started with my employer over 10 years ago. It used to be FREE for single employees. Over time that has changed. One of the reasons is NOT just the economy, but abuse. People took advantage of our very generous health care and it became increasingly more difficult for my employer to afford this. We used to get 12 sick days a year. Far too many people were using all 12 days every year. Now we only get 6. I could certainly complain...but...I usually used about 4-6 days a year...so I guess the people that use NONE could consider ME part of the problem as well.

I am certain there are jobs Mr. Harrington has done that has probably be far less than what someone else would have done it for. Should that person accuse Mr. Harrington of ruining their industry?

I know a few photographers who will not accept a single dime from anyone even when offered. And they do good work. They shoot purely for the thrill and fun of creating art. Who's business are they ruining?

Maybe the real culprit is Canon and Nikon. Perhaps it's their fault of making these awesome cameras affordable to too many people. Perhaps something like the Nikon D300 should have been $7,500 because I can quite honestly tell you, if it was, I would not have one. If the Nikon D70 was $2,500, I would never have bought one and I would not be here were I am today. In fact, if it wasn't for the affordability of quality digital cameras, I still wouldn't even OWN a camera. So if you want to blame anyone, think about blaming Nikon, for it wasn't for them, no one would have to suffer my views in these forums.

It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

ROBBIE SELL wrote:It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

Sorry but this is why internet forums are sometimes useless: paranoia and torching mobs, the sky isnÂ´t falling, thereÂ´s no sign of Armageddon, nor there is any apocalyptic horse rider in the horizon.

As said before thereÂ´s lots of work that needs to be custom and people wanting the image for their campaign to be exclusive to them, I canÂ´t see how you would take photos of trade marked items from IStock, or celebrities (international, national and local to your state/city), nor I think you can use a stock photo for the new mercedes campaign if they are going to show you their new car, etc.

Yes TIME decided to use a stock photo big deal sad that the OP didnÂ´t get a better deal but he might now rethink his strategy for the future, but for the rest of the industry things are like they are and the "interwabs" have little to no effect in the real life day to day work.

Is microstock bad? yeah for those shooting it the price is so low and the offer is high (with thousands of people joining micro stock each month) that their chances of making a decent revenue is not that great, as I said before there are great shooters in those microstock sites, they are shooting in their own foot if they think their work is only worth $30 or $1 or $0.30, because if they made the effort to market themselves they could be doing much more. Is microstock bad for the rest of us? hardly if you know how to market yourself.

So please stop the interwabs paranoia now, what you see in forums is hardly a reflection on what happens in the everyday as a photographer out there.

Great accomplishment but not at all a great accomplishment! $30? Give me a break!!!

You damage our entire industry when you work with stock agencies that cheat you and undermine all that we are working hard to do as business professionals and artists. You will never make a career in photography earning $30. So all you end up doing is damaging yourself and our industry.

You could have made the cover anyway so BIG KUDOS, but earned a ton more!

I've personally made close to $44,000 on just one image of the Las Vegas Strip and 5 years of licensing it. I've also done a $10,000 headshot. Don't believe me? I've got the check stubs! How do I do it? I VALUE MY WORK and CHARGE HIGH AMOUNTS! Never sell to stock agencies. You have to be retarded to do that! Make your own stock agency from your own work.

BIG KUDOS for the cover, VOMIT for devaluing photographers by working with stock agenices and earning just $30. What a joke!

RICHARD CREAN wrote:Great accomplishment but not at all a great accomplishment! $30? Give me a break!!!

You damage our entire industry when you work with stock agencies that cheat you and undermine all that we are working hard to do as business professionals and artists. You will never make a career in photography earning $30. So all you end up doing is damaging yourself and our industry.

Blah, blah, blah. Sorry the days are gone when you can make $44,000 from a snapshot of the Las Vegas strip, but there you are.

ROBBIE SELL wrote:It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

ROBBIE SELL wrote:It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

and years ago there were a lot less photographers and a lot less people and businesses buying photos, stock and otherwise. When I was younger there were maybe 200 magazine in the book store, now thats well over a thousand and thats not even a small percentage of whats available. the internet is buying images like crazy and more people are shooting them, and claiming to be photographers. Some are great fulltime photographers, some are average fulltime photographers, some are great amateurs, some are average amateurs. And some just are not good at all and still manage to call them self a photographer and some still manage to make money.

The market has changed, demand is way up overall, and supply is also way up overall, there are levels, stock is one, micro stock is one, assignment is one, they all have a place and they will all make someone money if they have the skill, dedication and time to put into it. Some may even be skill-less, and get lucky and be able to sell that one off shot and earn money from what would otherwise have been a costly hobby with no financial return. I am amazed that any professional is bothered by this at all. Do they have no faith that they can make money with their superior skill? I was in a Peter Lugers last week, it was packed, so too was the TGIFridays, why are they not out of business when McDonalds has cheapened the whole food industry? Some people pay for what they want, others want what is cheap, and others can only afford what is cheap. I have seen far worse on the cover of Time and it probably cost them more, this was a good deal and financially responsible on the part of the buyers.

I agree with what I bolded. The rest really isn't in your ability to control other than to become their agent. So perhaps that is what you need to do. Instead of complaining, become a photographer agent and start getting photographers higher paying jobs so they don't sell out to microstock.

No bubba, photographers have to get the guts to do some of this on their own and learn to be better businessmen and charge appropriately for what they do. Photo work isn't a time and materials business like a plumber.

ROBBIE SELL wrote:It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

Um...newsflash...Chevy sells trucks for $30,000 and they just went bankrupt.

No bubba, photographers have to get the guts to do some of this on their own and learn to be better businessmen and charge appropriately for what they do. Photo work isn't a time and materials business like a plumber.

No bubba, photographers have to get the guts to do some of this on their own and learn to be better businessmen and charge appropriately for what they do. Photo work isn't a time and materials business like a plumber.

Bubba's aren't allowed in SoCal. The correct terminology would be dude or Bro...

ROBBIE SELL wrote:It's failing in the sense that Time got a cover shot for thirty bucks, and a lot of photographers turning to new careers. If Chevy was selling trucks for $100, I'd consider the automobile industry to be failing.

The funny thing is that if Chevy did sell a truck for $100 there would be a bunch of photographers lined up to get the deal. But Time buys a photo for $30 and they are unethical.

and years ago there were a lot less photographers and a lot less people and businesses buying photos, stock and otherwise. When I was younger there were maybe 200 magazine in the book store, now thats well over a thousand and thats not even a small percentage of whats available. the internet is buying images like crazy and more people are shooting them, and claiming to be photographers. Some are great fulltime photographers, some are average fulltime photographers, some are great amateurs, some are average amateurs. And some just are not good at all and still manage to call them self a photographer and some still manage to make money.

The market has changed, demand is way up overall, and supply is also way up overall, there are levels, stock is one, micro stock is one, assignment is one, they all have a place and they will all make someone money if they have the skill, dedication and time to put into it. Some may even be skill-less, and get lucky and be able to sell that one off shot and earn money from what would otherwise have been a costly hobby with no financial return. I am amazed that any professional is bothered by this at all. Do they have no faith that they can make money with their superior skill? I was in a Peter Lugers last week, it was packed, so too was the TGIFridays, why are they not out of business when McDonalds has cheapened the whole food industry? Some people pay for what they want, others want what is cheap, and others can only afford what is cheap. I have seen far worse on the cover of Time and it probably cost them more, this was a good deal and financially responsible on the part of the buyers.

DUDE! the world is ending! remember when digital came? th... no wait.. it was when autofocus lenses appeared! egh... no... I know it was when polaroids appeared! hmm ... no it was when 35mm existed!... noo.. it was when those bulb flashes appeared!! ehm... I know! it was Daguerre lost to film! hm... wait... what were we talking about?

and years ago there were a lot less photographers and a lot less people and businesses buying photos, stock and otherwise. When I was younger there were maybe 200 magazine in the book store, now thats well over a thousand and thats not even a small percentage of whats available. the internet is buying images like crazy and more people are shooting them, and claiming to be photographers. Some are great fulltime photographers, some are average fulltime photographers, some are great amateurs, some are average amateurs. And some just are not good at all and still manage to call them self a photographer and some still manage to make money.

The market has changed, demand is way up overall, and supply is also way up overall, there are levels, stock is one, micro stock is one, assignment is one, they all have a place and they will all make someone money if they have the skill, dedication and time to put into it. Some may even be skill-less, and get lucky and be able to sell that one off shot and earn money from what would otherwise have been a costly hobby with no financial return. I am amazed that any professional is bothered by this at all. Do they have no faith that they can make money with their superior skill? I was in a Peter Lugers last week, it was packed, so too was the TGIFridays, why are they not out of business when McDonalds has cheapened the whole food industry? Some people pay for what they want, others want what is cheap, and others can only afford what is cheap. I have seen far worse on the cover of Time and it probably cost them more, this was a good deal and financially responsible on the part of the buyers.

Well, you shoot Models comps, portfolio photos and such which is far different from the guy who's going to ad agencies, designers and direct companies for his work.

Care to explain how this will damage a photographer assigned to shoot the new line of tools for a brand, or grannyÂ´s store shot for their ad or the cell phone maker new phone, how about the ad shots for this season of a clothing store??? I dunno whatÂ´s your experience on the field but there are a LOT of custom assignments ready to be taken, with the state of the global economy many companies arenÂ´t going cheap with their advertising in fact they are spending a lot more because today is harder to make a potential costumer to buy their stuff.

Why don't you address Stephen Eastwood. He seems to be someone that is direct and current experience with ad agencies, designers, and direct companies for his work.

Then again, he does use Canon products so he might be a hack. ducks and runs.

I am also not directly in the stock business, so that will be a valid argument as its not impacting my end at all.

I will say that once a sweater company I shoot for wanted to do a billboard and asked if I could come down in price for the shoot, I said not likely, but how much? the rate was very, very low, the CEO wanted to use a stock shot for 400, I offered to pay them the 400 for it. Next day I get the call back that they don't want to use one and prefer to use me, I asked if they had found some stock shots of their new sweater line? or if they had even found some stock shots of their old sweater line that fit the description? they said no, I replied that why you pay a photographer, and I could recommend lower cost ones that are very good given that my rate is high for a single run billboard of a relatively simple shot. I got my rate and they were very happy with the result and I still shoot for them. It was more a question of could they get it for less, they realized if they did not ask I was not going to offer it for less, so they asked, we discussed and they agreed to my normal rates in the end. Other companies may decide a stock shot could work, others may have liked who I recommended. I was not concerned in any event, if they moved on I would replace them on my calendar with another company, perhaps for higher rates as they would be new and not a long time client.